Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. E.i. Dupant (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT20Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The respondents have imported 'Supro Plus LF IP Non GM (Nutritious Beverage Powder)' claiming classification under CTH 1901.90 and CETH 1901.99 attracting basic Customs duty at the rate of 30% and nil additional duty of customs. The original Authority has classified the impugned goods under CTH 2106.90 and CETH 2108.99 charging basic customs duty at the rate of 30% and additional duty of customs at the rate of 16% On appeal, the Lower Appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the respondents accepting classification under Heading 1901.90. Hence this appeal by Revenue.2. It is the claim of Revenue that the impugned goods are a combination of Supro, a branded Soy protein isolate, with carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals and that the protein in the impugned goods is Soy protein isolate based and the same being highly refined soy protein, it cannot be compared to the flour, meal or grout based preparation covered under CTH 1901 which covers only very basic prepar...
Wartsila India Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT100Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Heard both sides. The dispute relates to importability of the impugned second hand reconditioned Wartsila Vasa Basic Engine valued at Rs. 3.19 crores as capital goods. The adjudicating Commissioner has rejected the claim of the appellants for considering the impugned engine as capital goods on the ground that it is required for producing electricity and electricity cannot be considered as goods. His arguments are that the definition of "goods" under the Customs Act, 1962 does not cover and that "in common trade parlance no one will consider `electricity' as goods".2. We, however, find that the adjudicating Commissioner has overlooked the fact that electricity is covered under heading 27.16 of both the Customs and Central Excise Tariffs. Customs and Excise duties are levied respectively on goods traded internationally and domestically.Inclusion of `electricity' in Customs and Excise tariffs clearly points to the fact that the same has been considered as `goods'.3. We also note that ...
Tulsi Industries and anr. Vs. the Ratnakar Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC191
1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment and order as parties are same and issue involved is also same.Appeal No. 114/2004 is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 3 M/s. Tulsi Industries and Ors. being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 and 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune in Original Application No. 439-P/2001, while Appeal No. 204/2005 is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 M/s. Tulsi Industries and Anr. against the very same judgment and order whereby their counter claim came to be rejected. The appellant No. I/defendant No. 1 is a proprietary concern, which is run by the appellant No. 2/defendant No. 2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 availed loans from the applicant Bank. The defendant Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 8 were the guarantors for repayment of the loan found due and repayable from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. All these defendants are close relatives and members...
AshwIn Industrial Corp. Vs. Globe Steerings Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR564
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed for the recovery of sum of Rs. 1,90,914.14/- with further interest on the principal amount of Rs. 1,29,574.18/-at the rate of 18% p.a. till payment and or realization. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under :2. The plaintiff is the supplier of tools and alloy steels. The plaintiff has been supplying the aforesaid material to the first defendant for carrying on their manufacturing activities. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 was the manufacturers of steel gears and essentially it was manufacturing the same for the second defendant. It is further the case that sometime in or about 1981 the defendant No. 1 was in financial difficulties and therefore certain arrangement was arrived at between the defendant No. 1 and 2. Pursuant to the said arrangement the defendant No. 2 had appointed the employee of the first defendant as the chief executive of the first defendant to manage the affairs and managing th...
The Malwa Vanspati and Chemicals Co. Ltd. Vs. the State Trading Corpn. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR640; IV(2006)BC436; 2005(4)MhLj915
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of sum of Rs. 10,77,280.29/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a on the principal amount of Rs. 7,44,344.27/-.2. Some of the material facts in the background of which the present suit is filed is briefly set out as hereunder :3. The defendant is a canalising agency of the government of India and under the various import export policies promulgated commenced from time to time by the government the defendant is entitled to import exclusively various oils as a canalising agency and distribute the same to the various consumers in India. The plaintiffs are the manufacturers of hydrogenated and refined oil extractions and soaps etc. and are carrying on business at Indore in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The defendants after import of certain oils offered the same to various mills as per the quotas allocated to them. Similarly the plaintiff mills were also allocated certain quotas for the imported oils. U...
Shri Shantilal Kesharmal Gandhi Vs. Shri Prabhakar Balkrishna Mahanubh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR853; 2005(6)BomCR71; (2005)107BOMLR1; 2005(4)MhLj507
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge concurrent findings of fact given by the Courts below, whereby, respondent-landlord's suit for possession on the ground of 'change of user and non occupation continuously for more than six months' has been decreed.2. The suit property is situated on the ground floor of house No. 358, Shop No. 4, Ganesh Peth, Pune, consisting of two rooms having monthly rent of Rs. 55/-and Rs. 16/- towards education cess. Petitioner-tenant had occupied Shop No. 1, as alleged, for composite use since 1962 to 1977. On 22nd January, 1997, the petitioner-tenant agreed and exchanged the tenancy of Shop No. 4, premises in question, with Shop No. 1. The petitioner-tenant, since then, has agreed to occupy the Shop No. 4 for residence purpose only and accordingly been using the same since then, till 18th September, 1981. From 11th September, 1981, petitioner-tenant, without permission, has been...
Smt. Lilavati Balkrishna Masal (Since Deceased Represented by Heirs Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR198; 2006(1)BomCR371; (2005)107BOMLR280; 2005(4)MhLj476
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1988 the petitioners were impleaded as defendants and they had filed an application at Exhibit 17 to frame a preliminary issue on the point of Jurisdiction. This application was rejected by the trial Court and in an appeal the District Court set aside the order and directed the trial Court to frame the preliminary issue and to decide the same by allowing the parties to lead evidence vide order dated 12-6-1991 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1990. Accordingly the trial Court on remand framed the following issues'Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit in view of -the contentions raised in W.S. filed by the defendant. ' 2. The trial Court vide its order date 20-10-1992 held that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and, therefore, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff to file in the proper Court. Being aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 80 of 1992 which ca...
Smt. Suman Shankar Unde, Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heir and Rep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR620; 2005(6)BomCR899; (2005)107BOMLR45; 2005(4)MhLj462
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the concurrent finding of Courts below, decreeing the suit for possession of the suit premises in favour of the respondent--landlord, on the ground of defaulter, as contemplated under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short Bombay Rent; Act).2. The suit premises consists of three rooms and a bath room in the house No. 214, situated at Ward No. 3, Baramati, District Pune. The tenancy was monthly and the agreed rent was Rs. 35/- per month, excluding education cess and other taxes. There was irregularity in payment of the rent and therefore, by the notice dated 14/5/1989, the respondent-landlord demanded the arrears of rent.. The petitioner however, paid Rs. 800/- to the respondent on 30/5/1373. The petitioner preferred a Misc.. Application No. 41/1373 for the fixation of standard rent on 18/5/1979. The respondent prefer...
Shailendra Zolu Sahare and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4727
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Appeal No. 468 of 2004 is by accused No. 3 Shailendra who was accused No. 3 and Criminal Appeal No. 469 is by Vinod who was accused No. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 2003. These accused were tried along with 2 other accused Lokesh Pardhi and Raju Bahekar. The trial resulted in acquittal of other accused and the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 459 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-and default sentence for S.I. for one month.2. The judgment of conviction and sentence is challenged on the grounds namely :(1) that the identification during the identification parade was suspicious and cannot be used to corroborate the identification of the accused before the Court;(2) the identification of accused by witnesses even before the Court cannot be trusted being corroborated with unreliable identification parade;(3) the identification parade was vitiated because there was...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj115
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 30th January 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing the complaint ULP No. 1549 of 1991 filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short 'the ULP Act') for want of jurisdiction.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union which is espousing the cause of the workmen. Respondent No. 1 is a public limited company which carries on business of conducting horse races. Respondent No. 2 is also a public limited company and horse owners are its members. Respondent No. 3 is also a public limited company and the horse trainers are its members. Several workmen are employed by respondent No. 3 in its activity of training the horses. The petitioner filed a complaint under ULP Act alleging that the workman employed by respondent No. 3 in the course of training of the horses were the employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the complaint, the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »